My “Class Act” Trailer's Structural Integrity Failure

[Defender Chassis]

So morons like you don't get screwed.

How was that not a reasonable question? Why is your response acceptable?

 

[Defender Chassis]

SO, when did this enclosed CAR hauler turn into an enclosed RACE CAR hauler? Semantics

Obviously, most race cars are going to be lighter.

That said, the vast majority of full size 4-door CARS these days tip the scales at more than 4k lbs.What do you think most people buy an enclosed trailer to haul? I am willing to bet it is not their daily driver. Do you own an enclosed trailer? The 73 Plymouth I listed came from the factory at 3400 lb. So, it is 400 lb lighter but it also has a full cage and a big block.


Not like it really matters. The trailer is rated to haul a vehicle of said weight, and the only way to get it in there is to drive up the door. Unlike your tailgate analogy, whereas any truck can be loaded without the use of the tailgate.

Remember, the gate only takes part of the vehicle weight while being loaded.

 

[IDASHO]

Daily driver, race car, who the hell cares WHAT type of rig they are hauling. That is up to the owner to decide what they need it for. Just so long as it remains within the limits of the trailers specs.

Who are you to care?

I have had a few enclosed trailers. One made by interstate, the other by haulmark. Neither of them car-haulers though. They were cargo trailers.

But I loaded the hell out of them, well past their GVWR. And they never failed, even on multiple 900+ mile trips relocating from CA to ID.

Bottom line is that there is NO reason to put such a door on a trailer of ANY kind, when the trailer is rated as such.

A 2009 Mercedes CLS550 4-Door Coupe is more than 4k lbs

A 2009 BMW 750i is more than 4k lbs

A 2009 Cadillac CTS-V is more than 4k lbs


These are just a few examples.

And by your rational, NONE of them can be hauled in a trailer rated for 6k??

Hmmm....

 

[Titus]

What do you think most people buy an enclosed trailer to haul? I am willing to bet it is not their daily driver. Do you own an enclosed trailer? The 73 Plymouth I listed came from the factory at 3400 lb. So, it is 400 lb lighter but it also has a full cage and a big block.

I see enclosed car trailers in 2 places. Race tracks and car shows. Lots of old cars at car shows. Lots of old cars are heavy.

 

[IDASHO]

I see enclosed car trailers in 2 places. Race tracks and car shows. Lots of old cars at car shows. Lots of old cars are heavy.

Add one place to that list.

On the road, when people relocate.

 

[1SlowFormula]

Why dont we start a poll of people with enclosed car trailers? Lets list the trailer size and capacity and then list the cars you regularly haul in your trailer. I will go 1st.

2001 Exiss Mach10 40' Gooseneck w/ twin 7k lb axles (5700lb empty)
#1: 225" Dragster, 1500lb
#2: 2000 EzGo Golf Cart, 650lb.
#3: 1995 Spitzer Jr. Dragster, 350lb.
1, 2 & 3 are currently hauled at the same time but not loaded simulltaneously.
#4: 1973 Plymouth Duster, 3000lb. (not raced for the last three seasons)

I agree with you about all of it, but am really responding to the quoted part above...

I think this is a good idea, but probably not needed for this post. I too am more involved with racing (drag racing in my case as well) and as you stated most of those guys are not really going to overload that door to the extent OCG did. But, you must realize we are only part of the market for these trailers, and honestly the intended use is not always the only use, but I guess that goes back to your previous point before that things should be made with the expectation that if someone can do it they more then likely will and why your stuff was built well over it's rating...

I have a 1998 Pace American 28" tag, older and heavier then the new stuff, but also can handle loading damn near anything...

My trailer has a 40 gal water supply on the front over the tongue, outfitted with upper and lower with a sink in the countertop of the lower cabinets, and a shower stall. I normally carry (at least is always loaded in there) a generator, ~300# of assorted tools , (3) 5 gal fuel jugs (1 for the generator and 2 with the race fuel mix), electric winch, 2 full size 12v batteries, and 110v panel, trailer electrical stuff (there is also 12 and 110v lighing and roof mounted 110v AC), 20' awning on the side of the trailer, folding chairs, folding canopy for comfort at the track, spare tires, and misc spare parts all said and done well more than 1500# added to the base weight that I can't even remeber any more before any sort of car gets loaded and as I said that stuff normally lives in there...

As for cars:
'95 Firebird converted from a street car to drag car (sub 3000# with me in it, but I normally winch it in bcause it is a beast to climb out of while in the trailer)
'67 mustang coupe (never weighed it but I would guess around 3200# max with me driving it in)

However I have also loaded it with:
'98 Dodge dakota (guess it was over 3600# or more at least)
'91 Mistubishi Montero (again 3600# or more, never weighed it)
Honda Pilot SUV loaded with stuff (a pure guess is over 4000#)
And again those were not the intended use, but when someone needs a tow I normally help them out, and if OCG was a buddy stuck on the side of the road with his 6000# cars and gave me a call to come tow him I wouldn't hesitate to do it, but I also think my ramp can easily handle it too...

 

[Defender Chassis]

Bottom line is that there is NO reason to put such a door on a trailer of ANY kind, when the trailer is rated as such.

Like you said, who are you to make that determination? I can think of many reasons to have a door of this type. To elimnate the side cables and use hinge mounted torsion springs the door will have to be lightened. If not, all trailer amnufacturers would be doing it. Many people use a trailer like this to haul motorcycles. I have seen similar trailers outfitted with fold down beds so once the cycles are unloaded the trailer can be used to camp. Before you get your ******* in a wad, I realize this is not OCG's intended use. My point is that some here think if the trailer is rated for 7k lb then the door should also be rated that high. That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door. I can see it as a desireable benefit to some. I have foam padding I install on my cables so people do not run into them. They do get in the way quite often.

BTW, I didnt say the tailgate analogy was perfect, only that it was more valid that what was proposed. If fact though, what about some of the recent super pickups made by Sterling and International? They obviosly have way more capacity that the bed they install can handle. This is because they are made to pull a trailer also. Does this mean they should not be built? Just because they will not work for everyone does not mean they are not perfectly acceptable by others.

 

[1320stang]

Defender, if you had a car like OCG posted, would you haul it on an open trailer?

 

[slicktoptt]

Many people use a trailer like this to haul motorcycles. I have seen similar trailers outfitted with fold down beds so once the cycles are unloaded the trailer can be used to camp. Before you get your ******* in a wad, I realize this is not OCG's intended use. My point is that some here think if the trailer is rated for 7k lb then the door should also be rated that high. That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door. I can see it as a desireable benefit to some."


Here's where I think you are clearly missing the point. I don't think anyone expects a trailer door that will hold 7k lbs...but they surely would expect it to hold more than 2,500lb. The trailer was sold as a "car hauler". Not a motorcycle hauler or cargo hauler or snowmobile hauler. The problem with the design on this car hauler is that it has the same door on it as those lesser haulers. Even CA's Gooseneck haulers have the same rated door. Do you truly believe it's appropriate to manufacture something that has components on it that the product description and generally accepted intended use will exceed the limitations of.

Does it really make sense to you that a person that buys a car hauler and only intends to use it to haul motorcycles or atv's gets the benefit of a product that will be over engineered for their application but a guy that buys a car hauler to actually haul cars gets the same door that is on the cargo and snowmobile trailer they offer?

Do you get to make your roll cage out of any size tube with any wall thickness you want? Do some cars not even require a roll cage? Why do you even need a roll cage it's not necessarily needed by everyone that races...only those who wreck.

 

[Art From De Leon]

"That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door"

So you are saying that NO door/ramp built without cables could have been built strong enough? Pretty broad generalization, I would say, especially since the trailer seems to have been specified to meet his requirments. Again, it would seem the manufacturer would have been the first to address his specifications, IF they knew that a cableless door/ramp would not meet the requirement.
The whole purpose of a torsion design is to eliminate the need for cables, or is it only for aiding in the lifting of the door/ramp?
It appears to me that he greatly increased the integrity of the ramp by adding the 2 X 8 boards as stiffeners to spread the load.

 

[nissan_crawler]

Im going to go back on my word and once again respond in this thread.



Wouldnt a better analogy be:

"Yes sir the truck is rated for 4k lb but no sir you can not put all of it on the tailgate at one time."

No, not really. Since the trailer is a CAR trailer, the logic would be that it could easily be taking (roughly) half the trailers rated weight at once going up the ramp. If it was a utility trailer, or a motorcycle/atv trailer, than yes.

What is your point? I said 4500 lb. Do many rock crawler enthusiasts use enclosed trailers? If so, what percentage of enclosed trailers are used by these people? Do you own an enclosed trailer for the expressed purpose of hauling your Mom's minivan? Your Ranger? I did not say there werent cars that do not weigh more than 4500 lb.

I will be going to the drag strip this weekend. I can not think of a single car that will participate outsdide of the street class that would comew close to 4500 lb. Let alone the ones that get towed in with enclosed trailers.

You guys are jumping on the bandwagon here and have no idea what the manufacturer actually did or did not do during the sale. This trailer obviously has a lite duty gate that some are suggesting should never be put on any trailer. This trailer is obviously made to fill a niche market (elimnation of cables on the ramp door) and with any design benefit there are compromises. For all anyone here knows the manufacturer could have warned the dealer and the dealer went forth with the sale. Some here would like ClasAct to come on here and defend themselves but nobody in there right mind would voluntarily take part in this lynch mob mentality. The fact is there is only one side of the story being portrayed here. I have nothing against OCG and have no connection to ClassAct.

BTW, I reserve the right to respond to any further antilogic.

Why dont we start a poll of people with enclosed car trailers? Lets list the trailer size and capacity and then list the cars you regularly haul in your trailer. I will go 1st.

2001 Exiss Mach10 40' Gooseneck w/ twin 7k lb axles (5700lb empty)
#1: 225" Dragster, 1500lb
#2: 2000 EzGo Golf Cart, 650lb.
#3: 1995 Spitzer Jr. Dragster, 350lb.
1, 2 & 3 are currently hauled at the same time but not loaded simulltaneously.
#4: 1973 Plymouth Duster, 3000lb. (not raced for the last three seasons)

Yes, many rock crawlers use enclosed trailers. Do I own an enclosed for the express purpose of hauling a minivan? No. Do I own my car trailer for the express purpose of hauling anything? No. However, it gets used often for hauling things, whether it's branches, concrete, a vehicle, lumber, rock, etc. If I had an enclosed instead, it would have hauled those exact same vehicles.

Listing drag car weights and thinking that applies at all to the weights of a normal vehicle going in a CAR HAULER is completely irrelevant. Oh, and a dragster, golf cart, and jr. dragster aren't even cars to begin with.

Like you said, who are you to make that determination? I can think of many reasons to have a door of this type. To elimnate the side cables and use hinge mounted torsion springs the door will have to be lightened. If not, all trailer amnufacturers would be doing it. Many people use a trailer like this to haul motorcycles. I have seen similar trailers outfitted with fold down beds so once the cycles are unloaded the trailer can be used to camp. Before you get your ******* in a wad, I realize this is not OCG's intended use. My point is that some here think if the trailer is rated for 7k lb then the door should also be rated that high. That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door. I can see it as a desireable benefit to some. I have foam padding I install on my cables so people do not run into them. They do get in the way quite often.

BTW, I didnt say the tailgate analogy was perfect, only that it was more valid that what was proposed. If fact though, what about some of the recent super pickups made by Sterling and International? They obviosly have way more capacity that the bed they install can handle. This is because they are made to pull a trailer also. Does this mean they should not be built? Just because they will not work for everyone does not mean they are not perfectly acceptable by others.

IT'S A CAR HAULER. How do you not get this? It is not a motorcycle trailer, it is not a camper. IT'S A CAR HAULER. The logical assumption would be that the trailer could easily see it's rated capacity going in the trailer in one shot. The next logical assumption would be that the door would obviously have to be rated for at minimum, half that weight.

 

[Jaguar Fan]

... In my opinion, Class Act will not survive in any business world. Let alone today's environment...

I suspect you are right. There's an old saying: "If you don't take care of your customers, someone else will."

Have you run a D & B on them?

 

[Old Moparz]

I read all the pages, but skimmed over half the posts. I did read all of OCG's posts to see his updates though. My thoughts is that the dealer should be correcting this, & pressuring the manufacturer into making good on a mistake. Unless it was the dealer's mistake. One thing though, the manufacturer is definitely responsible for not catching an error before the trailer was shipped. Nobody should have approved a car hauler with the wrong door no matter what.

Good luck at getting this squared away, OCG.

 

[ptschram]

Some here would like ClasAct to come on here and defend themselves but nobody in there right mind would voluntarily take part in this lynch mob mentality. The fact is there is only one side of the story being portrayed here. I have nothing against OCG and have no connection to ClassAct.

BTW, I reserve the right to respond to any further antilogic.

I don't post here much, but I do lurk an awful lot and I must respond to the above statement regarding the value of Class Act entering the fray.

We are all going to make mistakes, the last guy that was perfect got nailed to a cross. What sets folks apart is how they respond to finding that they have made a mistake. In few disagreements, is a single entity fully responsible for the dispute. In this case, we are only privy to one side.

If Class Act were to come into this discussion, apologize and offer to repair/replace the trailer/door, not only would OCG be mollified, but we'd all be marveling at their willingness to work the problem out. Perhaps some sort of assurance that their QA program would be revised to ensure such mis-applications don't recur would finish the repair job to their reputation.

Silence on the part of Class Act is much worse than the risk they'd take by responding-if they responded appropriately, ie, the customer is always right.

Good luck OCG,
PT

ps-anybody here other than Nissan Crawler know what "Wenzel" means? LOL

 

[atillett]

ps-anybody here other than Nissan Crawler know what "Wenzel" means? LOL

thats a 10-4 big guy........................togtfo hahahha............

 

[jgira12]

Re: My “Class Act” Trailer's Structural Integrity Failure

So morons like you don't get screwed.

And the basis for your moronic response is? So he got a bad trailer....get over it; there are tons of bad deals and they don't get stickies....what's so special about this one other than an excessive amount of boring responses?

 

[Justanoldguy]

what's so special about this one other than an excessive amount of boring responses?

Are you getting all in knotts about a sticky... lol

Some (too serious)people here need to get a life and learn to laugh a bit..

 

[gte718p]

ps-anybody here other than Nissan Crawler know what "Wenzel" means? LOL

thats a 10-4 big guy........................togtfo hahahha............

I do.


unfortunately people are lazy. Even pirate has gotten lazy recently.

 

[bmwpower]

And the basis for your moronic response is? So he got a bad trailer....get over it; there are tons of bad deals and they don't get stickies....what's so special about this one other than an excessive amount of boring responses?

Get over it? I dunno OCG, maybe you should just do as this guy says and just get over it.

If you really need me to explain WHY the thread is stickied, I've proved that you really are a ***** who obviously has too much money to worry about getting a bum trailer, heck..you'll just get over it, right?

The only boring response in this thread is yours.

 

[petty4243]

"That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door"

So you are saying that NO door/ramp built without cables could have been built strong enough? Pretty broad generalization, I would say, especially since the trailer seems to have been specified to meet his requirments. Again, it would seem the manufacturer would have been the first to address his specifications, IF they knew that a cableless door/ramp would not meet the requirement.
The whole purpose of a torsion design is to eliminate the need for cables, or is it only for aiding in the lifting of the door/ramp?
It appears to me that he greatly increased the integrity of the ramp by adding the 2 X 8 boards as stiffeners to spread the load.

we had a car hauler that we mounted a winch towards the front of the trailer with the cable running down the center of the roof with an eyelet on the door.... we could raise and lower the door easily and had more than enough support for any vehicle we put in it also after unloading, we would simply un hook the cable from the door and recoil it to a stop point on the ceiling.... no cables in the way at all

 

[OldCarGuy]

And the basis for your moronic response is? So he got a bad trailer....get over it; there are tons of bad deals and they don't get stickies....what's so special about this one other than an excessive amount of boring responses?

I’m sorry that you feel that this thread has been boring. However I’m with BMW on this one.

Get over it? I dunno OCG, maybe you should just do as this guy says and just get over it.

If you really need me to explain WHY the thread is stickied, I've proved that you really are a ***** who obviously has too much money to worry about getting a bum trailer, heck..you'll just get over it, right?

The only boring response in this thread is yours.

Indeed I’m in a place in life that I can very well afford to replace or rebuild the ramp door on my own. That isn’t the point. I have a lot better places to put my resources, than correcting a manufacturer’s mistakes.

I any event hopefully this thread will help others from purchasing a Car Hauler that the manufacturer meant to haul ATV’s and Motorcycles.


.

 

[STClurker]

I can't help but wonder why the dealer wouldn't replace the door (which would likely make ocg happy) and then the dealer goes after the manufacturer.

just my 2c; good luck either way OCG

 

[rwhite692]

I think the reason some folks consider this thread as not being "worthy" of being "stickied" is because there has not been a definitive resolution of what party is truly at fault in this case.

Has the dealer produced proof that they spelled out OCG's requirements to the trailer manufacturer, in writing, (ie, a Work Order) and got a written confirmation back from the manufacturer acknowledging the requirements? It sounds like the dealer is the party who bungled the whole situation.

 

[Justanoldguy]

I any event hopefully this thread will help others from purchasing a Car Hauler that the manufacturer meant to haul ATV’s and Motorcycles.


.

And, for me anyway, that is the MAIN reason this thread was started.

.

 

[porschedude996TT]

I sent an email to the company president telling him he might want to look into his name being drug through the mud. It may get him to respond to His Problem... Good Luck!

 

[Defender Chassis]

Defender, if you had a car like OCG posted, would you haul it on an open trailer?

No, I am not suggesting that OCG haul his cars on an open trailer. Im also not suggesting all enclosed car trailers be equiped with doors rated for one third of the trailers capacity. I am suggesting that there is legitimacy to building a trailer like this one. OCG stated that this trailer should have never been built as has others. My argument is simply that this trailer would have been more than adequate for the majority of those that have an enclosed trailer to haul "cars." There were easily over 100 enclosed trailers at the track where I race this weekend. I do not know of any that haul a car that would have overloaded the door on this trailer. I personally have a set of extension ramps that I am very carful to load a full size car with. I need them with the dragster because it sits so low. My trailer will haul 10k lbs but the dragster ramps are rated for about 20% of that. Should I have not installed them?

As I see it OCG's argument is twofold:
1: This trailer should never have been built and has no real world value as constructed.
2: The manufacturer and dealer knew what I wanted and sold me something that would never hold up for my intended use.

#1 does not hold water in my opinion. Even if my previous prediction that this trailer would be fine for 95% of those with an enclosed trailer was only actually 50%, that would still more than prove my point. An Ariel Atom does not fit the need of most motorists but that does not mean they should not be built.

#2 has more merit. I find it hard to believe the manufacturer would stick their neck out for a single sale. It just does not make sence. I do believe that a dealer who works on commision and may be selling stereos at Best Buy next week would have little apprehension in doing the same thing though. OCG has never stated, let alone presented proof, that the manufacturer knew the intended application. I may be proven wrong on this but until OCG even suggests the manufacturer actually knew that JTI was selling their trailer for the wrong application then I think the manufacturer should be given the benefit of the doubt. There are a lot of possibilities as to what happened to cause this issue. If it turns out that ClassAct knew about the misapplication of their product and they approved or even failed to object then shame on them.

BTW, I do not find it totally off base for ClassAct to not talk with a customer in this kind of case. That is what the dealer network is for. JTI should be bending over backwards to get this sorted out. In fact, I think they should resolve it even if ClassAct is giving them the same treatment they are giving OCG. If ClassAct is at fault and JTI has to eat the resolution then JTI should stop representing the product.

 

[Defender Chassis]

Defender, if you had a car like OCG posted, would you haul it on an open trailer?

"That is not necessarily needed by all of those in the market for a piece of equipment of this type and if you want to eliminate the side cables then you obviously have to take a reduction in capacity of the door"

So you are saying that NO door/ramp built without cables could have been built strong enough? Pretty broad generalization, I would say, especially since the trailer seems to have been specified to meet his requirments. Again, it would seem the manufacturer would have been the first to address his specifications, IF they knew that a cableless door/ramp would not meet the requirement.
The whole purpose of a torsion design is to eliminate the need for cables, or is it only for aiding in the lifting of the door/ramp?
It appears to me that he greatly increased the integrity of the ramp by adding the 2 X 8 boards as stiffeners to spread the load.

You are correct. I supose it is possible that you could build a door w/o cables that did not require a reduction in capacity and use trosion springs at the hinge. Since it is not common though it leads to the conclusion that it is not realistic. I have been running this through my head though and have a couple ideas with respect to some type of pneumatic or hydraulic assist.

 

[Kurn]

Whether OCG can build a new door or build a new trailer is NOT THE POINT.He was sold a defective product,and the Mfg. should make good on it!

 

[nissan_crawler]

As I see it OCG's argument is twofold:
1: This trailer should never have been built and has no real world value as constructed.
2: The manufacturer and dealer knew what I wanted and sold me something that would never hold up for my intended use.

#1 does not hold water in my opinion. Even if my previous prediction that this trailer would be fine for 95% of those with an enclosed trailer was only actually 50%, that would still more than prove my point. An Ariel Atom does not fit the need of most motorists but that does not mean they should not be built.

#2 has more merit. I find it hard to believe the manufacturer would stick their neck out for a single sale. It just does not make sence. I do believe that a dealer who works on commision and may be selling stereos at Best Buy next week would have little apprehension in doing the same thing though. OCG has never stated, let alone presented proof, that the manufacturer knew the intended application. I may be proven wrong on this but until OCG even suggests the manufacturer actually knew that JTI was selling their trailer for the wrong application then I think the manufacturer should be given the benefit of the doubt. There are a lot of possibilities as to what happened to cause this issue. If it turns out that ClassAct knew about the misapplication of their product and they approved or even failed to object then shame on them.

Yes, but they don't market the Ariel Atom as a 1-ton truck either, now do they?

Class act markets it as a car hauling trailer, with a capacity of 7500#'s (IIRC), but yet you can't bring a 7500# vehicle into the trailer.

Now, if class act marketed it as a car hauling trailer with a capacity of 7500#s, but only good for a 4,500# car, and 3,000#'s of cargo, but only loading 2,500#'s max of cargo at a time, you might have a point. See how dumb it sounds to say it, let alone market a trailer with those stipulations?

Comparing people with drag cars as part of a normal use of a trailer is ridiculous. The vast majority of people are not putting light weight, stripped cars into these trailers.

 

[Defender Chassis]

Whether OCG can build a new door or build a new trailer is NOT THE POINT.He was sold a defective product,and the Mfg. should make good on it!

How so? The door was labled for 2500/2000 lbs. He routinely overloaded it for 2 years without a failure. Only when he really way overloaded it did it fail.

 

[Defender Chassis]

Yes, but they don't market the Ariel Atom as a 1-ton truck either, now do they?

Class act markets it as a car hauling trailer, with a capacity of 7500#'s (IIRC), but yet you can't bring a 7500# vehicle into the trailer.

Now, if class act marketed it as a car hauling trailer with a capacity of 7500#s, but only good for a 4,500# car, and 3,000#'s of cargo, but only loading 2,500#'s max of cargo at a time, you might have a point. See how dumb it sounds to say it, let alone market a trailer with those stipulations?

Comparing people with drag cars as part of a normal use of a trailer is ridiculous. The vast majority of people are not putting light weight, stripped cars into these trailers.

Actually, this trailer is marketed as having a "payload" of 6974lb. Same page clearly states:
Ramp Door (Standard on 8'6" Wide)
• Spring Assisted Door with No Cables
• Oversized Opening
• Black Spray on Sand Non-Skid Coating
• 120 lb weight with a 2500 lb capacity
(Disclaimer: This may not have been clearly stated at the time OCG bought his trailer. Fact is though that the manufacturer was putting the weight limit on the gate at the time of the sale. The dealer evidently did not know their product.)

You are correct about comparing it with people that haul drag cars. This may not be the typical use. At the same time, typical enclosed car trailer owners do not haul 1930 Packards either. Even if you include the car show guys, their typical car is going to be under 4k lb. I stand by my previous comment: Most enclosed car trailer owners would have had no issues with the gate on this trailer. Have you noticed that nobody has responded to say: "I own an enclosed car trailer and routinely haul vehicles that weigh 6k lb."

 

[petty4243]

How so? The door was labled for 2500/2000 lbs. He routinely overloaded it for 2 years without a failure. Only when he really way overloaded it did it fail.

how many times can you step on a 1x6 four feet long held up at each end before it snaps.... i am sure i could many times....but eventually it will fail

 

[Defender Chassis]

how many times can you step on a 1x6 four feet long held up at each end before it snaps.... i am sure i could many times....but eventually it will fail

Bad analogy. Thats like saying I stepped on it for two years without failure and when my son and I both stepped on it it failed.

 

[Junkman]

How so? The door was labled for 2500/2000 lbs. He routinely overloaded it for 2 years without a failure. Only when he really way overloaded it did it fail.

WRONG!!!!!!!! His door wasn't labeled at all. The manufacturer updated the website when a problem arose. If you don't think that people usually haul large Packards, and other heavy cars in enclosed trailers, you have never attended a prestigious auto show, such as Pebble Beach Concourse d'Elegance. I know a few people that haul their fully restored Packard Phaeton's in enclosed trailers without issue.
I guess that your name says it all... You will defend the indefensible at all costs to your reputation.

 

[lawfarm]

Junkman,

OCG did eventually find the (tiny) labels on the door of his trailer. He was fully honest about that disclosure and identified it above. The label was tiny and inappropriately placed if it was intended to be a warning disclosure. Even after OCG posted numerous, clear pictures of the door on this board, none of the hawks on here found the labels.

I'm not providing a legal opinion here, but rather a common sense opinion. I'm going to take OCG at his word that he had discussions with Class Act regarding his needs. I haven't yet seen a reason to doubt OCG's integrity, and I suspect that some of the posters on here are shills for Class Act (I'm looking at you, NewCarGuy). OCG's representations that he spoke with his dealer and conveyed his needs to Class Act seem to be confirmed by the fact hat Class Act built him a custom trailer--they changed the fenders, lengthened the doors, etc. They deviated from their standard production trailer to make a custom model for OCG. That much seems uncontested.

Also, OCG requested a longer door, and Class Act refused, claiming that they could not make a longer door that was strong enough. From a common sense basis, that seems to imply that Class Act indicated this door length and configuration was strong enough for OCG's needs.

If this was an 'off the lot' trailer, and neither OCG nor his dealer had any interaction with Class Act regarding its configuration, then I would agree...OCG should be talking to his dealer. (In the end, I'm not sure if OCG will get satisfaction from Class Act and he may end up talking to his dealer). But in this case, the manufacturer made a specific, modified, tailored product to meet OCG's needs. They refused to make certain changes (lengthening the door even more), because the acknowledged that with those changes, it would not be structurally sound. I don't think that placing a relatively hidden 'warning' label on the door somehow eliminates all of Class Act's liability here. I tend to think that Class Act's conduct in building this specific, modified trailer for OCG likely falls into the 'warranty of fitness for a particular purpose' realm, were Class Act built a trailer that should have performed for OCG's needs. But I'm certain that OCG's attorney is talking to him about that.

Also, I think we have to acknowledge that different users of trailers have different purposes. Certainly some would use a trailer like this to transport a large number of ATVs, never loading the door beyond 2500#. Some may use it for lightweight drag cars and large numbers of tools. But I don't think it is beyond the realm of reason to suspect that many would use a car hauler trailer to haul cars. And while there are some deviations in weight between OCG's antiques and some modern cars, there are a lot of automotive enthusiasts whose cars would weigh as much or more than OCG's units. As a matter of common sense (and different people may think differently about this), it seems to me that if you have a trailer with XXXX# capacity and only one primary access door, and if the access door comes down and is intended to be used as a ramp, that access door should be capable of handling whatever weight the trailer is capable of handling (even if we're talking about net cargo weight and not gross vehicle weight), plus a healthy margin of safety. I'm surprised that this is such a contentious issue, and that there are those who post on here expecting that a trailer with a 5,000# capacity would have a ramp only capable of handling 500# (figures obviously changed to emphasize the point).

At the end of the day, I think the labels are relatively irrelevant. Labels are only effective if they are visible and actually serve to warn the user of a product; these are not and did not. I think the most compelling part of this story is that OCG ordered a custom product for a specific purpose. Class Act built it to his needs, and even refused to make certain changes because of the limits of their trailer (i.e. the lengthened the door, but not as much as OCG requested). OCG experienced concerns with the trailer (with the door bowing under load) and was advised that this was 'normal' and 'to be expected'. And ultimately, the door failed under load, when OCG was attempting to do something that seems relatively reasonable: he was attempting to drive a car, whose gross weight is far less than the design and legal payload of the Class Act trailer, into his car hauler.

 

[OldCarGuy]

How so? The door was labled for 2500/2000 lbs. He routinely overloaded it for 2 years without a failure. Only when he really way overloaded it did it fail.

Defender you just don't get it. I hauled the same cars on this trailer since I purchased it. Over its' short lifespan, the repeated loading and unloading weakened the integrity of the door until it could no longer handle a load and failed. The door is made with a foam plastic core sandwiched between two sheets of 1/4” plywood, within an aluminum picture frame. Not exactly the best construction to repeatedly drive cars over.

I'd like to add,, again... I ordered a “Car Hauler”,to haul cars. Class Act cannot be that stupid not to know that. Simply by the way I had them modify their standard “Car Hauler” would indicate that I didn't purchase it to haul ATV's and Motorcycles. I received a “Car Hauler” with an ATV/Motorcycle ramp door! All the antique car enthusiasts that I know have cars that exceed my Class Act Car Hauler's ramp door rated capacity. And I don't think it would hold up to race cars either.

BTW, I do not find it totally off base for ClassAct to not talk with a customer in this kind of case. That is what the dealer network is for. JTI should be bending over backwards to get this sorted out. In fact, I think they should resolve it even if ClassAct is giving them the same treatment they are giving OCG. If ClassAct is at fault and JTI has to eat the resolution then JTI should stop representing the product.

I don't go along with your idea of not getting in touch with the manufacturer. Thought I did clear it with the dealer first. I would think that any reputable manufacturer would want to know how their product failed first hand. If not only to correct their future products.

In 1995 I purchased one of the first Oldsmobile Aurora's. That was plagued with a magnitude of unrelated problems. That were mainly electrical. It would just shut down and not start. In the one year that I owned it, it almost clocked more miles behind tow trucks than under its' own power. I knew the problem went beyond the dealer's responsibility and went directly to Oldsmobile. Who quickly, and without any fuss, took the car back and refunded me all my money including the sales tax. That's one of the reasons I still a big fan of General Motors. Knowing that they stand behind their products, I purchased at least six new cars from them since.

Contrary to common sense, the President of Class Act has yet to return my letter that he received almost two weeks ago. That alone tells me volumes about their company's philosophy. In the future I surely will not even consider them as a viable supplier. And will continue to make others aware the pitfalls of Class Act Trailers...

 

[OldCarGuy]

Junkman,

OCG did eventually find the (tiny) labels on the door of his trailer. He was fully honest about that disclosure and identified it above. The label was tiny and inappropriately placed if it was intended to be a warning disclosure. Even after OCG posted numerous, clear pictures of the door on this board, none of the hawks on here found the labels.

I'm not providing a legal opinion here, but rather a common sense opinion. I'm going to take OCG at his word that he had discussions with Class Act regarding his needs. I haven't yet seen a reason to doubt OCG's integrity, and I suspect that some of the posters on here are shills for Class Act (I'm looking at you, NewCarGuy). OCG's representations that he spoke with his dealer and conveyed his needs to Class Act seem to be confirmed by the fact hat Class Act built him a custom trailer--they changed the fenders, lengthened the doors, etc. They deviated from their standard production trailer to make a custom model for OCG. That much seems uncontested.

Also, OCG requested a longer door, and Class Act refused, claiming that they could not make a longer door that was strong enough. From a common sense basis, that seems to imply that Class Act indicated this door length and configuration was strong enough for OCG's needs.

If this was an 'off the lot' trailer, and neither OCG nor his dealer had any interaction with Class Act regarding its configuration, then I would agree...OCG should be talking to his dealer. (In the end, I'm not sure if OCG will get satisfaction from Class Act and he may end up talking to his dealer). But in this case, the manufacturer made a specific, modified, tailored product to meet OCG's needs. They refused to make certain changes (lengthening the door even more), because the acknowledged that with those changes, it would not be structurally sound. I don't think that placing a relatively hidden 'warning' label on the door somehow eliminates all of Class Act's liability here. I tend to think that Class Act's conduct in building this specific, modified trailer for OCG likely falls into the 'warranty of fitness for a particular purpose' realm, were Class Act built a trailer that should have performed for OCG's needs. But I'm certain that OCG's attorney is talking to him about that.

Also, I think we have to acknowledge that different users of trailers have different purposes. Certainly some would use a trailer like this to transport a large number of ATVs, never loading the door beyond 2500#. Some may use it for lightweight drag cars and large numbers of tools. But I don't think it is beyond the realm of reason to suspect that many would use a car hauler trailer to haul cars. And while there are some deviations in weight between OCG's antiques and some modern cars, there are a lot of automotive enthusiasts whose cars would weigh as much or more than OCG's units. As a matter of common sense (and different people may think differently about this), it seems to me that if you have a trailer with XXXX# capacity and only one primary access door, and if the access door comes down and is intended to be used as a ramp, that access door should be capable of handling whatever weight the trailer is capable of handling (even if we're talking about net cargo weight and not gross vehicle weight), plus a healthy margin of safety. I'm surprised that this is such a contentious issue, and that there are those who post on here expecting that a trailer with a 5,000# capacity would have a ramp only capable of handling 500# (figures obviously changed to emphasize the point).

At the end of the day, I think the labels are relatively irrelevant. Labels are only effective if they are visible and actually serve to warn the user of a product; these are not and did not. I think the most compelling part of this story is that OCG ordered a custom product for a specific purpose. Class Act built it to his needs, and even refused to make certain changes because of the limits of their trailer (i.e. the lengthened the door, but not as much as OCG requested). OCG experienced concerns with the trailer (with the door bowing under load) and was advised that this was 'normal' and 'to be expected'. And ultimately, the door failed under load, when OCG was attempting to do something that seems relatively reasonable: he was attempting to drive a car, whose gross weight is far less than the design and legal payload of the Class Act trailer, into his car hauler.

Now here's a member that understands the situation and rightfully addresses the issues.

 

[redsky49]

Junkman,

.... If this was an 'off the lot' trailer, and neither OCG nor his dealer had any interaction with Class Act regarding its configuration, then I would agree...OCG should be talking to his dealer. (In the end, I'm not sure if OCG will get satisfaction from Class Act and he may end up talking to his dealer). But in this case, the manufacturer made a specific, modified, tailored product to meet OCG's needs. They refused to make certain changes (lengthening the door even more), because the acknowledged that with those changes, it would not be structurally sound. I don't think that placing a relatively hidden 'warning' label on the door somehow eliminates all of Class Act's liability here. I tend to think that Class Act's conduct in building this specific, modified trailer for OCG likely falls into the 'warranty of fitness for a particular purpose' realm, were Class Act built a trailer that should have performed for OCG's needs. But I'm certain that OCG's attorney is talking to him about that.

Also, I think we have to acknowledge that different users of trailers have different purposes. Certainly some would use a trailer like this to transport a large number of ATVs, never loading the door beyond 2500#. Some may use it for lightweight drag cars and large numbers of tools. But I don't think it is beyond the realm of reason to suspect that many would use a car hauler trailer to haul cars. And while there are some deviations in weight between OCG's antiques and some modern cars, there are a lot of automotive enthusiasts whose cars would weigh as much or more than OCG's units. As a matter of common sense (and different people may think differently about this), it seems to me that if you have a trailer with XXXX# capacity and only one primary access door, and if the access door comes down and is intended to be used as a ramp, that access door should be capable of handling whatever weight the trailer is capable of handling (even if we're talking about net cargo weight and not gross vehicle weight), plus a healthy margin of safety. I'm surprised that this is such a contentious issue, and that there are those who post on here expecting that a trailer with a 5,000# capacity would have a ramp only capable of handling 500# (figures obviously changed to emphasize the point).

At the end of the day, I think the labels are relatively irrelevant. Labels are only effective if they are visible and actually serve to warn the user of a product; these are not and did not. I think the most compelling part of this story is that OCG ordered a custom product for a specific purpose. Class Act built it to his needs, and even refused to make certain changes because of the limits of their trailer (i.e. the lengthened the door, but not as much as OCG requested). OCG experienced concerns with the trailer (with the door bowing under load) and was advised that this was 'normal' and 'to be expected'. And ultimately, the door failed under load, when OCG was attempting to do something that seems relatively reasonable: he was attempting to drive a car, whose gross weight is far less than the design and legal payload of the Class Act trailer, into his car hauler.

Lawfarm makes one of the more cogent arguments in this thread. What has surprised me however, are the efforts of some posters who have served as apologists for Class Act, while dismissing the plight and concerns of the person who has suffered from this situation - Old Car Guy. If the intent is to create controversy, I think that most forum members are perceptive enough to recognize such efforts.

Old Car Guy is the injured party in this situation, and had Class Act properly resolved this issue in a timely and responsible manner, this thread would not exist. I can certainly sympathize with OCG and I have become increasingly surprised that the manufacturer has essentially told him to go blow smoke. Any decline in business that results from their behavior would appear to be well deserved. I would never consider doing business with them.

Legal "gotchas" aside, if one should custom order a car hauling trailer with cargo capacity of 7000 lbs., is it not reasonable to expect that a vehicle, with a weight up to that designed load capacity, will be driven into the trailer?

I fail to understand how anyone could make a reasonable argument to the contrary. I also fail to see how disparaging the OP adds anything beneficial to the discussion. Contrary opinion is welcome when it is constructive, not so when it is merely argumentative.

As it appears that this case will only be resolved through litigation, perhaps it is time to close this thread until the final outcome is known.

 

[Defender Chassis]

Now here's a member that understands the situation and rightfully addresses the issues.

I do not disagree at all. I also agree that the fact you did order some changes to the trailer does make it sound like ClassAct does have some culpability with respect to this issue. My only reason for taking an oposing viewpoint to this issue is that it was becoming a one sided bashing contest. There are always three sides to an issue. Side A, side B and then there is the truth. I am interested to see what documentation JTI forwarded to Class Act. Are you working on putting this together? I assume that since it was a custom unit that you filled out some kind of request form with the details of what you wanted on your trailer and/or were going to use it for? Did you ever speak directly with anyone from ClassAct?

In addition, I agree that if I were an owner or had a vested interest in the company (ClassAct) I would make an effort to deal directly with you.

 

[Defender Chassis]

Old Car Guy is the injured party in this situation, and had Class Act properly resolved this issue in a timely and responsible manner, this thread would not exist. I can certainly sympathize with OCG and I have become increasingly surprised that the manufacturer has essentially told him to go blow smoke. Any decline in business that results from their behavior would appear to be well deserved. I would never consider doing business with them.

How can you reasonably make this comment after only hearing one side of the issue?